RevokeTablePermission

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a revocation action (implying mutation/destructive), but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens to existing permissions not mentioned, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a permission management tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a permission revocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after revocation, whether there are confirmation steps, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for understanding this mutation operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '撤销用户的表权限' clearly states the action (revoke) and resource (table permissions) in Chinese. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'RevokeMemberProjectRoles' or 'ApprovePermissionApplyOrder' which handle different permission types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'GrantMemberProjectRoles' or 'CreatePermissionApplyOrder' for permission management.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.